SheFinds Asks You: Dresses With Pockets, Hot or Not?

May 9, 2007 by SheFindsErin
shefinds |


The Topic: Dresses with pockets

The Debate: This year’s Oscar darling Jennifer Hudson got dinged for wearing a Red Carpet gown outfitted with -– of all things -– pockets. But it’s not just Red Carpet gowns that are getting this tomboyish treatment. You can find plenty a casual dress with pockets, too like this Free People Baggy Pocket Flirty Dress ($128). It’s only one of thousands out there right now defying an unwritten rule that pockets belong on pants and pants alone.

Don’t get me wrong, pockets are fab. They’re great for a quick stash-and-go, they limit bulky baggage in tight-squeeze bars, and there’s always the chance I’ll find a $10 bill in mine. But they defy the very purpose of dresses, that is, to make you feel pretty and girly. Jamming your hands deep in the pockets of a dress does nothing for your shape (think hunched shoulders, stumpy arms and two big wads of fabric adding unnecessary bulk to your hips). And let’s not forget that pockets negate the need for two of fashion’s greatest pleasures: a fantastic handbag and a fabulous manicure.

The Verdict: In my opinion, we need to keep pockets where they belong -– on pants and shorts. What do you think? Do dresses with pockets hit all the bases of form and function, or are they a good, utilitarian idea gone horribly awry? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below.


From Our Partners

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

From Our Partners

Learn more about RevenueStripe...